Man of Steel ::: 14 June, 2013

In my view Cage does his impression of Elvis Presly in every movie he has done, so the movie Viva Krypton might have been interesting.

that picture is horrific, on a few levels.

Looks like it was designed by Gunther von Hagens.

Python wrote:

This photo was just leaked. It still boggles my mind that Nic Cage actually got the role at one point. The fuck.

Would've been real shitty...but one thing he can be credited for was owning an original copy of Action Comics #1.

Python wrote:

This photo was just leaked. It still boggles my mind that Nic Cage actually got the role at one point. The fuck.

Christ.

Not sure which version of the outfit looks worse, that or Cavill's.

Ignoring the dour nature of the photography and the suit (again), I really like Amy Adam's Lois here. She looks strong and professional, unlike Kate Bosworth who was a girl playing a woman and seemed so frail and helpless.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Ignoring the dour nature of the photography and the suit (again), I really like Amy Adam's Lois here. She looks strong and professional, unlike Kate Bosworth who was a girl playing a woman and seemed so frail and helpless.

Lois looks "professional"? Her legs are spread far too wide for this picture. Looks like she's about ready for liftoff.

And it looks like Nic Cage's hair left the top of his head back in 1996 and somehow found its way onto Henry Cavill's side-burns in 2013. Ugh.

Nothing so far has impressed me about this film. Still waiting for something.

Where's all the color?

God, that's a boring shot.

Another totally unnecessary and premature reboot with the only purpose of taking your money!

:x

So get the Vaseline out, bend over forward and spread them, all of y'all, 'cause once again, Hollywood is going to Butt F U out of your hard earned Dollars and Pounds and Euros!

:affraid:

j7wild wrote:

So get the Vaseline out, bend over forward and spread them, all of y'all

You first.

Besides the color palette, I don't have much of a reason to dislike anything about the upcoming flick. Just hope it's better than SUPERMAN RETURNS.

Largo's Shark wrote:

j7wild wrote:

So get the Vaseline out, bend over forward and spread them, all of y'all

You first.

Not me!

I have no plans to see this just like I didn't run to the theater to see The Avengers and Dark Knight Rising and I have absolutely no plan to see them EVER on home video either - not even for free.

Does that mean you'll stop posting in this thread?

But consider this -- what is another Bond movie if not an excuse to "buttfuck you out your hardearned dollars"? You saw Skyfall anyways did you not?

j7wild wrote:

Another totally unnecessary and premature reboot with the only purpose of taking your money!

And with this a totally disagree. A reboot was the only way to go with Superman. Considering there has only been one Superman film in the last 26 years it's hardly premature.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

j7wild wrote:

Another totally unnecessary and premature reboot with the only purpose of taking your money!

And with this a totally disagree. A reboot was the only way to go with Superman. Considering there has only been one Superman film in the last 26 years it's hardly premature.

?

Superman 4 1987 and Superman Returns 2006 (both of them were crap).

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But consider this -- what is another Bond movie if not an excuse to "buttfuck you out your hardearned dollars"? You saw Skyfall anyways did you not?

You are not comparing Apple to Oranges here.

;)

Bond movies are not out to scam you out of your hard earned dollars like these recent unnecessary reboots (Spiderman, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead, Dirty Dancing) that have brought nothing new and fresh to their respective Film Franchise.

To add insult to injury, there will be another Batman Reboot released within the next 5-6 years, so soon after the over-rated crappy Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy.

The reboot is necessary for Superman. It's not about money, it's about making a clean slate. I would have skipped the whole origins storyline, but whatever.

Really? What was CR if not another reboot? And only four years after the last movie no less! (its been 7 since thelast Superman)

The Bond series mildly reboots with each new actor anyhow. The franchise has been going along, almost throuhh sheer force of inertia now, for 50 years. How can a new Superman movie be more unmecessary than a new Bond? There are 26 Bond movies. There are 6 Superman movies, and 1.5 of them are any good.

The spy film was the superhero movie of the 60s. The new Bond film every year and then every other year must have been greeted by a "for F***S sake, not ANOTHER one" by many an armchair critic.

What makes Bond any better than a superhero film? Oh right, you like Bond. Well, some people like Superman. Some, like me, have never been fully satisfied with any of his film appearances. So we anticipate the possibility that MAYBE this time they got it right.

Bond films are popcorn action blockbusters just like comic book movies, they have just been around longer. EON ran out of Fleming novels to cannibalize 26 years ago and KEPT going, not because they artistically felt there was more of 007's story to tell but because THEY WANT YOUR MONEY.

It shocks me always how snobbish people around here can be about blockbuster cinema. "Oh, another Star Wars, how droll. Dear me, how awful The Avengers was."

WE ARE JAMES BOND FANS, PEOPLE. To everyone who ISNT an afficiando, our fav series is defined by babes, explosions, and bad quips. This aint high art.

So acting like a new Superman movie is somehow more depraved and greed motivated than a new Bond is ludicrous.

j7wild wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

j7wild wrote:

Another totally unnecessary and premature reboot with the only purpose of taking your money!

And with this a totally disagree. A reboot was the only way to go with Superman. Considering there has only been one Superman film in the last 26 years it's hardly premature.

?

Superman 4 1987 and Superman Returns 2006 (both of them were crap).

26 years since 1987. One released in the interim, RETURNS. And both of them being crap lends more to the arguement in favor of rebooting the series. There was nowhere to go with those films anyway.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Really? What was CR if not another reboot? And only four years after the last movie no less! (its been 7 since thelast Superman)

The Bond series mildly reboots with each new actor anyhow. The franchise has been going along, almost throuhh sheer force of inertia now, for 50 years. How can a new Superman movie be more unmecessary than a new Bond? There are 26 Bond movies. There are 6 Superman movies, and 1.5 of them are any good.

The spy film was the superhero movie of the 60s. The new Bond film every year and then every other year must have been greeted by a "for F***S sake, not ANOTHER one" by many an armchair critic.

What makes Bond any better than a superhero film? Oh right, you like Bond. Well, some people like Superman. Some, like me, have never been fully satisfied with any of his film appearances. So we anticipate the possibility that MAYBE this time they got it right.

Bond films are popcorn action blockbusters just like comic book movies, they have just been around longer. EON ran out of Fleming novels to cannibalize 26 years ago and KEPT going, not because they artistically felt there was more of 007's story to tell but because THEY WANT YOUR MONEY.

It shocks me always how snobbish people around here can be about blockbuster cinema. "Oh, another Star Wars, how droll. Dear me, how awful The Avengers was."

WE ARE JAMES BOND FANS, PEOPLE. To everyone who ISNT an afficiando, our fav series is defined by babes, explosions, and bad quips. This aint high art.

So acting like a new Superman movie is somehow more depraved and greed motivated than a new Bond is ludicrous.

:cheers:

Largo's Shark wrote:

I want to have sex with Amy Adams.

They've both got butt plugs installed.